Don't all the big agencies all have some kind of mobile stock collection? For both editorial and creative stock?

And there you can make real money becuase they have customers, plus you get to mix mobile stock with your regular portfolio?

If it wasn't for yuri investing I would think this is just another investment "teaser" story - pretend to build a business, come up with some modern sounding business plan, add as many impactful buzzwords as you can and then once it is all set up go and sell it out to some naive investor who doesn't really know the industry.

But yuri is smart, so maybe there is some idea there that I really cannot see.

Anyway, doesn't sound like an agency I would join. If I shoot with a phone, I'll just add it to the regular portfolio.

Take a look at the site, it's a niche of what could be presented for a purposely crappy looking fake-real stuff, with the random pop of quality out of quantity when lighting was abundant, and some moron got lucky with the composition. I don't think this model has anything to do with f.e. very attractive models in smooth directed lighting, with single color and other set-up backgrounds.

I'm glad I got your attention... I have questions.

1. Where can I find the Symbiostock Privacy Policy? For both the artists that use it to set up their websites and their buyers.

2. Where can read about the security features of Symbiostock? How are images protected from unauthorised access? How is the buyer protected?

3. Which part of Symbiostock is open source and which isn't? Can the project be forked by a third party? Is there a guarantee that the project will remain open source?

All advice appreciated, thank you in advance.

Dolores

PS: About the contentious subject line of my post.. If this project has legs, its creators and supporters won't fear such questions. :-)

Are you a con? You sure read like  a poor attempt at one.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 27, 2013, 16:07

Should be titled "iStockphoto tries to undercut all other agencies on independent content" or "iStock desperate to regain market shares, sees chance to give away independent content".

Full sized images still cost more than subs at shutterstock ($10 compared to the average of around $2.50) and pay the contributor more ($1.50-$2 compared to .25-.38), so they haven't undercut shutterstock just yet.

Check your facts buddy, they pay down to $0.07 comissions. The lowest ever.

I would give them at least a year. I have a hard time to understand what are you fearing to loose the pictures are always yours if it doesn't work out like you had hoped you can delete your port and upload elsewhere, personally I will produce a lot stuff for Stocksy in the ciming weeks.

It's not about loosing pictures, it's about loosing (wasting) time. You don't ever get that back.

My sales are improving even with no uploads for almost 1.5 months now, except for 123rf.

Shame Yuri doesn't dip in here to add some clarity. Why should he? Well he's happy to use this forum as a soundboard for ideas and his sunglasses copy-write issue; an explanation would end the speculation.

Why am I starting to think his input here only goes on way.

Why do you even bother thinking about this?

Yep, almost everyone finds money is harder and harder to come by. It's called deflation.

The question remains why these accounts got merged. Is this a part of the Yuri-deal and these accounts have been sub-accounts of Yuri or did these two contributors joined business together? It's pretty strange IMHO!

Maybe they got together to eek out a better deal with istock. It doesn't matter to the customers unless it results in some kind of a severe price hike.

....Your images would probably average $1 per image/month at SS, possibly better given time to become established in the default sort order. In other words if you uploaded 10K images to SS then they should generate an income of $10K+ per month...

Every uploaded image * $1/month? That calculation is doesn't make much sense. SS is good money tho.

Complete opposite, 50% drop compared to last month.

Quote from: cmannphoto on May 30, 2013, 07:04

Have you read the comments at the bottom?

This is illegal. Read istockphoto TOS. You cannot resell the images you have bought as you don't have this right. Not to mention that you buy an image once and sell it later to several people. If you haven't been sued until now, you can bet you will be now.

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses

"License restrictions
Here is what you cannot do with either a Standard or Extended license:
Sub-license, give away, share or otherwise transfer stand-alone images/files"


Reply;

    hoaiphong (100% | $10.3K)   Date:4 hours ago

I am understand, however now we resolve all problems and you can run it without any problem about license. As I note before, istockphoto contact me and now all are ok.

And you believe everything you read on the internet? Hrmm.

I can assure you we have a team of people working to get them removed from ISPs as soon as they change up. This latest endeavor isn't something we aren't aware of either.

That "team of people" sure did a great job with this up to now

The camera records what you saw....

Completely wrong: the focal length is almost always different, and cameras record colors and especially the contrast of light and shadow totally differently. Actually you need to process . out of your shot to get what you saw - mostly very strong highlight and shadow correction.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 28, 2013, 11:26

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 28, 2013, 11:08

actually its a fine collection, why don't you show us your WOW work topol?

That's actually irrelevant, as topol wasn't saying his work was better.

that is a really good one, so we can say other work suck, we just cannot say our rocks

Nope, you can, just accept that it might draw some criticism.